EA To Charge For Game Demos

[caco_killer]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27759/Analyst_EA_To_Release_Paid_DLC_Prior_To_Packaged_Game_Launches.php

It'll cost you $10-$15 for 3-4 hours of Gameplay, and then you get to pay $60 for a full retail release a few months later.

I was starting to like EA, so much for that idea.

[Nomad]

If they gave a discount for the full release if you've purchased the demo, I might not be so opposed to the idea. Although I'd never pay for a demo anyway.

[printz]

Wasn't purchasing demos of Doom 1 allowed? The FAQ said:

        (6) The shareware version of DOOM purchased anywhere (on CD-ROM
or otherwise) is LEGAL.

I know this is about modern EA games, not id's Doom 1 from 1993-1995. I'm just trying to say I'm not very surprised. And it's kinda funny. It does resemble the practice of charging the online gameplay in MMOs, simply because it's something that didn't use to be there, and was added because hell why not.

And finally -- why pay for a demo, now, when you can pay for the full game? Trial versions suck, anyway.

Depends on what you mean by demos, though. I understood "trial". In no way is this "shareware", because it seems it's not free.

[Maes]

Right. Nothing too surprising here, if it's tailored and engineered to suit an industry where 3-4 hours of gameplay are perceived as a "very high value".

"I think that the plan is to release PDLC at $15 that has 3-4 hours of gameplay, so [it has] a very high perceived value"

Mind ye, the 3-4 hours referred to expected gameplay time, not a 3-4 hour expiry timer. By modern standards this sounds pretty good (actual full price-games have less than than), but as I said in other threads, don't get the concept of "shareware" and "demo" confused.

A demo is often a quite different beast than the finished product, and this is a wholly different beast than both old-school shareware and the single-level pre-alpha demos you're used to. Basically, it's just another take at "episodic releases". Yawn, yawn, and again, yawn.

[Chopkinsca]

So, does this mean we will have to have demos to try out if we want to buy the demo?

[Belial]

That's how much you'd pay for some indie games that last just as long, so I ask again, what's the big deal here?

[Creaphis]

Belial, you're forgetting that big game companies are evil.

[wildweasel]

Belial said:

That's how much you'd pay for some indie games that last just as long, so I ask again, what's the big deal here?

At least with an indie game, you are actually getting the entire game for your purchase price, and not part of a game with the promise that you can get more of said game by paying for it again.

[Belial]

So? If your personal preference is not to pay for something that you don't consider a full experience then wait for the full game and buy that.

Besides, yet again it's pure speculation, as the 'demo' might as well be a more or less separate game/prequel/extra background story/extra maps/quests/missions/whatever, letting you experience the general gameplay concept, with little impact on the full game other than enhancing the experience, just like a DLC released after the game would.

Or, like Maes suggested, you can look at it as another attempt to introduce episodic content, though really, is anyone still waiting for HL2EP3?

[Graf Zahl]

I don't care about demos for games I don't care about.

So much for that...

[HackNeyed]

Hmm, it seems EA does NOT want my money... And all these years I thought different.

No I guess it doesn't really matter since demos are rarely the deciding factor if i'm interested enough. Although I almost bought Mirror's Edge because of the demo, wouldn't have considered it otherwise and oddly the reason I didn't buy it was that the demo was too short and took too long to restart so I didn't bother to try it long enough to decide and just said forget it.

Had the demo cost me anything more then my time I wouldn't have even gotten that far. Sure I bought the Doom shareware on a disc because there was no way I could download it at the time. This feels like a step back but demos have been horrid for years so maybe it'll turnout for the better.

On that note however Half-Life did it right. The Uplink demo wasn't part of the main game but had many of the elements found in the full version so even if you played the demo there was nothing you had to replay once you bought it. It's like they were inspired, had the talent to give away extra and oh yeah... they cared.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

WildWeasel said:

part of a game with the promise that you can get more of said game by paying for it again.

Better known as 'original and sequels' nowadays.

[kristus]

caco_killer said:

I was starting to like EA,

Why?

printz said:

Wasn't purchasing demos of Doom 1 allowed?

1. It wasn't a demo.
2. None of those monies went to Id, it was a scheme they used to make as many people as possible pass the shareware around. An incentive, so to speak.
3. It was entierly legal to pass the shareware around, free of charge.

[caco_killer]

kristus said:

Why?

Because they started to take risks with games such as Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, and Skate. These were drastically different games from the EA norm.

[Snarboo]

If you read further this is essentially paid for beta testing. EA says they will release an early part of the game for $15 or so and then tweak the game based on feedback. Not a bad idea, really, but I can't say I'd buy into it.

[magicsofa]

printz said:

It does resemble the practice of charging the online gameplay in MMOs, simply because it's something that didn't use to be there, and was added because hell why not.

I thought they were added because of maintaining dedicated servers and updating the game and dealing with ten year old kids who get haxxed.

[Craigs]

It does resemble the practice of charging the online gameplay in MMOs, simply because it's something that didn't use to be there, and was added because hell why not.

Except it's not. A lot of MMOs actually offer a free trials, and in other cases offer limited content for non paying players. A good example of which would be Runescape, where the equipment you can get, the areas you can explore, the quests you can do, and the skills you can train are all extremely limited unless you pay a monthly fee, in which case you get access to the entire game as well as all the updates.

[Maes]

There sure seem to be a lot of people that give a damn about game "demos" here...and a I double quote "demos" because apparently it has come to mean different things in different times:

• In the pre-internet days, a "demo" was usually closer to what today you'd call a pre-alpha release: usually based on an extremely limited version of the actual engine with a restricted dataset, and it didn't even have to be playable: a slideshow could do the trick. I recall some didn't even go beyond the title screen menu!
  
• When the "playable tech demo" became commonplace, it was something much more limited in extension than shareware, with which it coexisted for a while. The only major exception was Quake I's "demo", which included a good third of the game, just like shareware Doom. This was the exception rather than the rule though. By comparison, Need for Speed's demo had just one track if I recall, and the engine was actually much worse than that of the finished product. The Warcraft II demo included a bunch of the first missions, I recall...
  
• Later on, the shareware model like it had been in the Apogee and Epic games effectively died, but demos stuck, closer to the "one level" approach. They were generally more polished than in the past, but still, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS FUCKING SHAREWARE DOOM. Shareware is part of the marketing model of a game and is supported as well as the actual product, a demo is generally more like a one-off fanservice item meant to be used for a short while, though there are exceptions.
  
• From time to time, the idea of charging for demos or eliminating them altogether was flirted with by publishers and authors alike, but it didn't fly.
  
• Today, ideas like calling episodic releases of a game "demos" or even using the same codebase and database for the full game and the demo are being considered, implementing their differences only via DRM.
  

My point is that things have come a long way since "One must fall" was a diminutive proof-of-concept beat'em up game with two karateka sprites...or since e.t. the Star Trek: Generations PC demo was just a bunch of BMP files simulating the game's main menu!

[Zaldron]

It's just an idea. Don't buy them: idea fails; everything goes back to normal. Acting like a potential customer rather than a sperglord sure makes these things easier.

[Maes]

You know, EA could just avoid all the confusion by calling it with a name that is indicative of what it is: a partial episodic release. I see no valid reason to call it a demo, unless "episodic" has acquired a bad rep and they tried to avoid it. They also didn't want to say they're releasing what is effectively a short game on purpose...so "demo" sounded like a good compromise.

I don't know what's with all those "episodic releases", "unlockable features", "loadable content" etc. craze, but I guess they are measures catering more to the needs of the publishers and developers, as a means to cut costs etc.

For example, releasing smaller chunks of a game surely decreases time-to-market and allows ironing out more bugs (?), which may be an advantage compared to waiting e.g. one year and then releasing a big chunk without making any money in the mean. I'm sure their bean counters did the math, so who are we to judge? If anything, DW has been flooded with a lot of similar "OMG, THEY ARE KILLING THE FREE DEMOZ!!!11!!OnEONEONEONE11!!" threads that fail to see the big picture or simply at reading comprehension.

[Woolie Wool]

Belial said:

That's how much you'd pay for some indie games that last just as long, so I ask again, what's the big deal here?

Because it defeats the purpose of a demo--to try the game and make sure you think it's acceptable before paying money for it. There is no use for a demo you pay for.

[Enjay]

I can't remember the last time I even tried a game demo but this does seem like paying them so that you can experience their advert for their product.

[Sharessa]

I remember when you could buy Shareware in computer stores for like $1-$2. It was a service for the people who didn't have BBS service I guess. They also rented it at the video stores.

These days where everyone has high-speed internet, it's a pretty terrible idea, and anything more than $5 for a demo is complete crap, especially if you don't get any kind of discount on the full game if you buy it.

[Maes]

Woolie Wool said:

There is no use for a demo you pay for.

That is, assuming that your definition of "demo" matches theirs. Which it doesn't, anymore.

[Ultraboy94]

this idea is quite stupid... they couldd try and save themselves slightly and maybe, if you purchased the demo for like, £5 then you get that whole £5 off if you buy the full game.

[Cjwright79]

This is what happens when the world is filled with ... how shall I put this... the sorts of people who are all too willing to line EA's coffers.

Speaking only for myself, the first and last thing that EA did of any merit was NHL 94 for the Super Nintendo.

[SYS]

Creaphis said:

Belial, you're forgetting that big game companies are evil.

They must lick Satan's bottom because heaven forbid they charge money for anything in a capitalist society.

[Urban Space Cowboy]

caco_killer said:
It'll cost you $10-$15 for 3-4 hours of Gameplay, and then you get to pay $60 for a full retail release a few months later.

Wonderful! If they can get customers to pay more and more for less and less, eventually we'll be paying full price for nothing, and then this parody "news" story (published in Info magazine way back in 1987) will have finally come true.